[rsanek]

I mean, yeah, if she has solid RCT data on thousands to millions of childbirths and has found a statistically significant impact from using the magic crystals, I would support their use. A/B as well as scientific research uses the same basis.

The issue is that in fact the midwife will not have such data. The comparison being made is that A/B testing, if run competently, is pretty close to scientific research, in particular for research related to nudging.

[asdff]

I wonder how many engineers crack open a statistics book to find the correct test versus just plotting box plots and saying "see looks pretty different"

[saalweachter]

To be fair, the more profound a result the less math you need to convince anyone it is the case.

[asdff]

Maybe if you are parroting the result in front of investors instead of statisticians that's the case

[pessimizer]

But if run rigorously, A/B testing is identical to scientific research, and the scientific research fails to show an effect.

[sacrosancty]

The OP was referring to A/B tests that were "perhaps not up to the standard of science", not ones that were already science.